#about what shaped a viewer's experience bc same can be said about people who started watching for bt and watched season 7

[sunflowerwemadeit]

Because of something that I saw on my dash. As someone who completely coincidentally stumbled upon 9-1-1 3ish years ago (I watched LS first do NOT come at me I love queerness) and have watched it from season 1 all the way through the fifth one at that time? Yeah. I saw buddie happening. Mostly because I saw Buck and Eddie giving each other the one thing they both want- companionship.

Buck's arc from season 1 till season 7 has been about a man who never got love so he doesn't know what it looks like. Even when he came to 118 the house wasn't family yet. Bobby was closed off, Chim was very insecure with Tatiana and we'd seen Hen open the Eva Pandora's box. In short, everyone already had their own family, issues, past that they were dealing with. Slowly they all came together and became the 118 through the first season. In all of it we could see that Buck has only ever wanted to belong. To have companionship so he isn't left alone once again. Not when he has just started to experience what a family actually feels like.

His insecurities made him act like a dick and that's.....a fact. Yes during his probie years because he hadn't really committed to growing. He wasn't even aware there was a scope of growth because he had a set pattern. Of the reckless-casual sex-acts before he thinks-young man (he still just wanted people to stay or atleast not cut him off, hence the whole bobby giving him a kick in the ass to get it together). With Eddie in season 2 because again, of course he wasn't sure of his place in the 118, it was still very precarious for him so he doubled back and hated how Eddie was seemingly able to make space in the team easily when Buck himself had had to fight for it. Because of all aforementioned reasons. So he acted out. Because he thought it was him vs Eddie. But the moment he understood it was actually going to be him AND Eddie, that man folded like wet paper. He got companionship. He let his ego go because it was never about that. It was about feeling he has to fight for his place in the family and so he let his guards down the moment he realised that this competent af kinda closed af man was ready to reach out to him first, who had given him acceptance and saw his good side on his own without Buck having through walk through fire for it.

And Eddie? He was a single father with a kid with CP, had just moved into a new place because his parents were suffocating and ableist and who was running, just like always. Found this man who loved kids and despite acting out and being less mature was so ready to just. Try and make it a little better for him. To drive him to the school after a 7.1 earthquake. Both him and Shannon unfortunately never had anyone else to even just be present while parenting. Both of them have been alone for so long and Shannon ran away too and then it was his turn to take care of his kid all alone. And he was, but not for long.

Because Buck was there. To help him out with Christopher and all the red tape bullshit and just someone who loves to fix things or make it better for others was there lending a hand to Eddie without any suffocating or scary implications/expectations. Buck was just there for him. Buck also gave Eddie the easy acceptance he's never gotten from anyone else his whole life.

So yeah. As someone who has watched since season 1 and saw Buck's (and everyone else's) growth and development arcs, buddie makes a lot of sense. All they've ever wanted was companionship and acceptance and they found it in each other, quite seamlessly if I do say so myself.

And yeah I don't conform to the romantic love is completely different from platonic love bullshit because it isn't for me. So it's not even about that. It's about Buck and Eddie just finding it so easy to love each other and be there for each other. And continuing to build and maintain that relationship together. They understood each other and forgave each other and were just always present. They didn't let the other feel lonely if they could help it. It's about companionship. And Buck and Eddie constantly giving the other the feeling of belonging. So yeah.

[creampievampire]

Could you go into the difference between the subtext and queerbaiting in it, I'm still kind of -well it's obviously gay but nothing was really ever said or shown that says that expect for people talking about it- Like are the characters and their relationship just queer-coded (positivly ofc lol) but the baitiness comes from them sort of confirming it off the show?

of course! im assuming by ‘it’ you mean merlin, but rather than explaining the reasons why i think bbc merlin is a matter of subtext (or queer coding) and not queerbaiting, i think it would be easier and more productive to explain the difference between the two in general. they are very similar - which is why i think a lot of people are unable to tell the difference between them - but they have important differences

just a warning, this is going to be a LONG post lmao ive bolded exactly what each term means below, after which i go into more detail on the whole issue. this is something im passionate about so,,, ♥

queerbaiting specifically refers to a marketing technique in which creators hint at but dont actually depict a queer character or relationship. They do this in order to attract a queer audience with the suggestion of a character or relationship they can relate to, while also avoiding alienating their queerphobic audiences

queer coding is the subtextual coding of a character as queer through the use of things like metaphor, allegory, hinting, recognisable traits/stereotypes/experiences, etc. This is done to build believable characters and create more complex plot lines, and it is also regularly used by people who want to tell queer stories but are unable to do so explicitly. it CAN be used negatively to enforce damaging stereotypes, but that is just a small part of its usage

both of these things utilise subtext in order to work. subtext is not only a crucial part of the creation of any piece of media, but is impossible to avoid.

an example of the most basic types of subtext is when a character tells someone that everything is going to be okay, but you can tell they dont believe it. or when youre watching a story unfold and you suddenly connect the dots and realise whats going to happen before its explicitly stated - you used subtext and the hidden meanings and hints to figure it out!

the people involved w a piece of media create their story with a specific purpose or meaning in mind, and they construct the subtext of the story to reflect that purpose/meaning. HOWEVER, the viewers dont always see things the same!

your experiences and personality shape the way you view and interpret every piece of media you consume. if you hate cops youll see the insidious undertones in cop shows - if you grew up with an abusive parent youll see the biting implications in a characters dialogue that others find innocent - if youre queer you will search for and fine queer characters everywhere, regardless of the creators intentions

now, both queerbaiting and queer coding use subtext to function, right? so how do you know which is being used and whether or not its a bad thing? its all about intention

to give a specific explanation of the difference im going to use two examples that are (arguably) very similar in the way their queer characters became canon

example 1: adventure time featured the characters marceline and princess bubblegum, who have been forever depicted as a couple in fan content. their interactions in the show were read into and latched onto bc we saw ourselves in them and we saw it as positive queer rep. but their relationship was never explicitly discussed during the course of the show and was only confirmed at the end of the final episode.

that makes 10 seasons in which their relationship existed only in subtext, and when it did finally exist in canon it was only for a few minutes, if that.

example 2: supernatural featured the characters dean and castiel (lol) who have been depicted as a queer couple pretty much since the first episode cas appeared in. i personally hung on their every interaction, analysed every glance between them, bc i interpreted deans character as a parallel to my own childhood trauma.

cas joined the show in season 4, so that makes 11 seasons in which him being gay existed only in subtext, and when it was confirmed he was immediately cut out of the show. the exact nature of dean and castiels relationship still remains in subtext.

so why is it that adventure time is widely considered perfectly fine but supernatural is dunked on as being the poster boy for queerbaiting?

its bc adventure time involved queer creators and was an earnest representation of queer characters, but they were boxed in by their publisher, Cartoon Network and thus the only way for the relationship to exist in the show was through subtext.

supernatural, however, consistently neglected their queer character and employed transparent tropes and stereotypes - bringing him in just sparingly enough to keep queer audiences interested while never being gay enough to alienate their macho manly man queerphobe audiences. they would have dean and cas stare into each other eyes for a full 30 seconds and then almost immediately follow it up with an episode about dean banging a disposable female character.

so imho adventure time falls under queer subtext, and supernatural falls under queerbaiting

when it comes to a show like bbc merlin i see a lot of debate about whether or not its queer coding or queerbaiting, and my intention is not to convince you of either. merlin was very much a product of its time, and i have argued the same about seasons 4-6 of supernatural as well, before the queerbaiting escalated and became exhausting to me

the purpose of this post is to start giving you the information you need to analyse any piece of media and come to your OWN opinion as to whether or not its queerbaiting or whatever else

people will ALWAYS have differing opinions about this shit yall. i have debated so many times w so many people about where the line is and whats okay and what should be ‘cancelled’ and if consuming something deemed problematic makes you a bad person or not

and my conclusion?

if youre capable of acknowledging the flaws and issues w a piece of media without trying to defend it as a shining beacon of purity simply bc you like it, then you do you. enjoy whatever you want to enjoy - if i think its reprehensible i simply will never interact with you lol

at some point everyone has to stop regurgitating these generic woke speak cancel culture speeches and buzzwords and formulate their own opinions

my advice to anyone reading this is to learn how to do close reading (ill provide a link to a wonderful short guide on it in a reblog bc tumblr hates links) and start really considering where you draw the lines with all types of content. decide for yourself whether merlin or supernatural or adventure time crosses the line into content you cant stomach, but respect other people whose interpretations differ from yours

i know a HUGE amount of people think supernaturals confession scene was homophobic and toxic - a slap in the face - but when i watched it i saw myself reflected in dean. a repressed bisexual whose emotions had been stunted by lifelong trauma, who wasnt ready to face his feelings for cas but quickly realising that his chronic avoidance and fear was about to tear them apart possibly forever. to me it was tragic and beautiful, and i loved it

i also think merlin is a tragic and beautiful love story, and to me its a pivotal piece of queer media that changed the way i viewed love and made me believe that it was a possibility for me bc i related so deeply to arthur

i hope that you can draw a satisfying answer from this, anon, and i apologise for this post being a full essay lol but i believe it needed to be said  - i dont think there is a right or wrong answer here

[sanstropfremir]

hi hi! first i just wanna say i’ve loved reading all of your thoughts and analyses on kingdom, they were the highlight of my weeks with each passing episode. this ask might get long bc i’ve been holding this in for a while so sorry in advance 😭

i know you’ve touched on this a few times but my memory is bad so i don’t remember the specifics jsjds but i’ve been thinking about tbz using game of thrones as their theme for kingdom and i absolutely agree with what you’ve said about alienating viewers but i’m also kind of like ????? bc i felt like they didn’t even??? do anything with it? like with a song of ice and fire, it was vaguely fantastical enough to where you’d be like oh okay i see how this is GOT related. and then we see the iron throne in their kingdom come performance and they also have that burning eclipse in each stage (idk wtf it’s supposed to mean tho, i’ll just assume it’s some type of reference) but every other performance felt like they weren’t even referencing anything. unless they’re doing some real deep cuts, then thats even worse imo, but you’d think they’d at least try to show the most recognizable aspects of GOT bc how else are people gonna know? like idk maybe using a DRAGON !! instead of that disco ball ass snake they used for monster (idk if the snake is a GOT reference but i know there’s a snake in the monster mv so was it an exo reference?? who knows) or dress like characters in the show or wear outfits from that era or something at least !! if it was a copyright issue then all the more reason they shouldn’t have tried to use GOT but i don’t think so bc they show the iron throne so.

and then on top of it all, there isn’t even an actual story going on, they just. named each performance after something GOT related. the one that makes me go absolutely insane is their o sole mio stage being named after the red wedding episode. again, maybe some reference is going right over my head but that episode is literally about a massacre. what the fuck does el tango de roxanne, o sole mio, or literally Any part of that performance have to do with the red wedding? bc the stage is bathed in red??? it reminds me of skz wolfgang like just naming something after something else does not make it a good reference, let alone a reference at all (how are you gonna mention mozart and then don’t have the song, sans the intro bc that’s not part of the actual track, sample mozart or even classical music in some capacity? god). idk i just feel like if you’re going to alienate people by doing a specific ass IP you might as well go all the way.

with tbz it just felt like the creative director or whoever just slapped GOT on top and said good enough! and i feel like thats all the more evident in the way that they don’t even MENTION game of thrones in any of the prep stuff they’ll show before the performance (for ex. for a song of ice and fire we spent Literally 25 minutes in that underwater tank just for it to not even be part of the performance besides the 3 seconds of juyeon in that cut scene in the beginning. they don’t talk about GOT in any way shape or form but their entire performance is based on it?? doesnt make a lick of sense to me).

this is all coming from someone who is a HUGE fan of tbz mind you 😭 i love those boys to death but they were really killing me on kingdom

oh don't worry about length!! i'm sure you've seen some of the asks i get, i love long ones!

i totally agree with you, the most unforgiveable element of this whole thing is that they didn't do anything with it. game of thrones is a fantasy series; if they had actually gone through the work of lifting that aesthetic properly, along with whatever storyline nonsense they wanted, i would have forgiven it a lot easier. most people will recognize a western fantasy aesthetic, and so they can piece together assumptions about the story/context through their own personal experience. but when you only use the name of something or one specific image, you leave everyone hanging: the audience that does know the reference is scrambling trying to figure out why that specific one was used, and the audience that doesn't know the specifics but might recognize something vaguely is just wondering what the fuck is going on. a really good example of using an existing property as a source material is ateez's rhythm ta stage. it's apparently based on the show money heist, which i have never seen and know nothing about, but because the design uses really clear visual references that are not exclusive to that particular property i totally understood the stage.

honestly i think tbz unintentionally proved how important having a good and cohesive design is, much better than i ever could through just talking about it. the fact that you can see them start off well intentioned and strong but flub the landing, and then watch as their energy level slowly peters out because their creative team can't figure out how to improve is really interesting. i didn't point this out in the roundup but they go from having the most set in the first round to having no set in the finale. from my best guess, i think the creative team picked game of thrones as an overall theme simply because it's literally 'a game of thrones.' their rtk theme was 'stealing the crown' because they were all fighting for one slot in kingdom, so the implication is that all the groups here are kings fighting over the same throne. which is (extremely loosely) the plot of asoiaf. but in the end audiences weren't as receptive of the theme (this is probably in part to a general souring of mood around game of thrones since the end of the show), and because the creative team is not actually that good at their job they didn't know what to do and how to recover.